Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov became famous thanks to one work, about which Pushkin said: “His handwritten comedy “Woe from Wit” produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.” Contemporaries argued that “Woe from Wit” is “a picture of morals and a gallery of living types.” Since then, the comedy has continued to captivate readers and viewers who perceive its characters as living people.

The characters in the play not only live, go to the ball, love, and are jealous. Each of them shares with the viewer and reader their own, precisely their own and hard-won point of view on the world. There is a tense dialogue in the comedy life philosophies and worldviews. On the one hand, he is led by Chatsky, a leading man of his time, on the other, by Famusov and those next to him, Famusov’s society.

Famusov is a typical representative of aristocratic and bureaucratic Moscow in the first quarter of the 19th century, but the past century of “humility and fear” is his ideal. He praises the deceased uncle for the fact that he knew how to curry favor, bending over, dressing up as a jester so that he would be noticed. He admires a certain Kuzma Petrovich, who himself was rich, married favorably, and left his children not only a substantial inheritance, but also positions. And Famusov himself takes care of his relatives, placing them in cushy, profitable places. And all this in order to fill your purse tighter. In his opinion, he is not a groom for his daughter, Who does not have the souls of two thousand serfs. And if a person does not serve, he manages the estate in his own way,

He preaches free views, he, like Chatsky, falls into the category of freethinkers,

Dangerous people. Famusov sees danger for himself and others like him in teaching, books,

Dreaming of “collecting all the books and burning them,” so that other “people and affairs, and

Colonel Skalozub, a soulless careerist, appears before us as a more sinister figure, because he has the power of the military machine behind him. Although he is promoted not by merit, but by chance, using “many channels,” he does not become less scary. He simply reeks of Arakcheevism, you can’t fool him with his scholarship, and to Voltaire he prefers a sergeant major and a formation in three ranks.

Molchalin is a different kind of figure, quiet, wordless. But, nevertheless, “The silent are blissful in the world,” because they humiliate, flatter and love according to calculation. They may well reach “the famous levels”, petting mosquitoes and looking ingratiatingly into Tatyana’s eyes

Yuryevnam.

Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky is very similar to Molchalin, Chatsky also notes this. But Zagoretsky is more frank than Molchalin. He frank a pleaser, a liar, a card sharper, and on occasion an informer; it is not without reason that Gorich warns about this quality of his.

No, it’s not without reason that Griboyedov paints Zagoretsky, who came from the whirlpool of social life, like the other hero who appears at the end of the play, Repetilov. In his confused

In the story we see many Moscow and St. Petersburg types, “the smartest

People" who in fact turn out to be empty talkers, just like Repetilov himself, who vulgarizes

Gallery of typical images Famusov society is also represented by old woman Khlestova, an old Moscow lady, a despotic serf-owner, categorical in her

Estimates, and the family of Prince Tugoukhovsky, busy chasing rich suitors, and

The elderly, dull Countess Khryumina with her arrogant granddaughter, and Natalya Dmitrievna, a capricious coquette, crushing under her heel own husband, and a number of people who are not directly involved in the comedy, but are mentioned in cursory and apt descriptions.

As we see, there are quite a lot of representatives of Famus society, an old, moribund society, in the play. And therefore the main character is broken by its quantity, but not by its quality. After all, laughter and mockery permeate the entire play, and a ridiculed vice is no longer scary. Laughter conquers an environment teeming with silent, rock-toothed, Zagoretsks, -

An obsolete Famus society.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, have you had no success in your service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “was the head of the department under three ministers.” " His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, for all his talents, does not enjoy the support of Famus society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” in this scene it is decided - scary. Molchalin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master at pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.

Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by chance. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it’s here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further remarks are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.

He is ready to believe!

Ah, Chatsky! you love to dress everyone up as jesters,

Would you like to try it on yourself?

Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. These comedic scenes brilliantly reveal the characters that make up Famus’s circle. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed crazy to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “damned Voltairian”, “overstepped the law”, “he is in the Pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue “The Frenchman from Bordeaux” is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had separate conversations with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses sound, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently spin in a waltz , old people scatter around the card tables.

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov depicted life in Russia after Patriotic War 1812 Close in his views to the Decembrists, Griboyedov showed the clash of two camps in Russian public life: advanced Decembrist and old serfdom, “the present century” and the “past century.” Depicting the “past century,” Griboyedov brought onto the stage a whole crowd of inhabitants of noble Moscow. These are rich and noble nobles - “aces”, as they proudly call themselves. They are famous not for their merits in the official field, not for excellent performance of civic duty, not for orders and wounds received on the battlefields. No! The main thing for them is wealth. “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, he will be the groom,” says Famusov in a conversation with Skalozub. And a certain Tatyana Yuryevna is respected here only because she “gives balls that couldn’t be richer.”

Choking with delight, Famusov tells the young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, showed neither business qualities nor talents, but only “bravely sacrificed the back of his head” and became famous for the fact that he often “ the neck bent" in bows. And many visitors to Famusov’s house create honor and wealth for themselves in the same way as this old nobleman.

The Moscow high nobility, depicted in Griboyedov's comedy, lives monotonously and uninterestingly. Let's go to Famusov's house. Guests gather here every day. What are they doing? Dinner, playing cards, talking about money, clothes, gossip. Here everyone knows about others, envy their successes, and maliciously celebrate their failures. Chatsky has not yet appeared, and here they are already slandering his failures in the service. They don't read either books or newspapers. Enlightenment for them is a “plague”. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than then,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “Get you to work! Get you settled!” Moscow nobles boast of their patriotism, their love for their native country. Famusov enthusiastically tells Skalozub about the “special imprint on all Moscow people.” But there is very little Russian, simple and natural in them. On the contrary, everything about them, starting from the semi-Russian language and outfits with “taffeta, marigold and haze” and ending with the attitude towards their people, is deeply alien to the Russian. The girls sing French romances and read French books, they distort Russian names in a foreign way.

In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire: “It’s not that new things are introduced - never, God save us! No.” And when Chatsky dared to publicly announce five or six sound thoughts, how frightened the old master Famusov was! He called Chatsky " dangerous person", and his thoughts - "fictional ideas."

Members of the Famus society are united in one camp by ideals (“And take awards and live happily”), inertia, fear of the new, fear of advanced people. Unfortunately, many of our compatriots are almost no different from Famusovites. But it seems to me that ignorance and militant stupidity will be defeated by new generations, when not only rank and money, but intelligence and bright heads will be valued.

Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov became famous thanks to one work, about which Pushkin said: “His handwritten comedy “Woe from Wit” produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.” Contemporaries argued that “Woe from Wit” is “a picture of morals and a gallery of living types.” Since then, the comedy has continued to captivate readers and viewers who perceive its characters as living people.

The characters in the play not only live, go to the ball, love, and are jealous. Each of them shares with the viewer and reader their own, precisely their own and hard-won point of view on the world. In the comedy there is an intense dialogue of life philosophies and worldviews. On the one hand, he is led by Chatsky, a leading man of his time, on the other, by Famusov and those next to him, Famusov’s society.

Famusov is a typical representative of aristocratic and bureaucratic Moscow in the first quarter of the 19th century, but the past century of “obedience and fear” is his ideal. He praises the deceased uncle for the fact that he knew how to curry favor, bending over, dressing up as a jester so that they would notice. He admires a certain Kuzma Petrovich, who himself was rich, married favorably, and left his children not only a substantial inheritance, but also positions. And Famusov himself takes care of his relatives, placing them in cushy, profitable places. And all this in order to fill your purse tighter. In his opinion, he is not a groom for his daughter, Who does not have the souls of two thousand serfs. And if a person does not serve, he manages the estate in his own way,

preaches free views, he, like Chatsky, falls into the category of freethinkers,

dangerous people. Famusov sees danger for himself and others like him in teaching, books,

dreaming of “collecting all the books and burning them” so that other “people and affairs, and

opinions.”

Colonel Skalozub appears before us as a more sinister figure, a soulless careerist, because behind him is the power of the military machine. Although he is promoted not by merit, but by chance, using “many channels”, he does not become

Looks less scary. He simply reeks of Arakcheevism, you can’t fool him with his scholarship, and to Voltaire he prefers a sergeant major and a formation in three ranks.

Molchalin is a different kind of figure, quiet, wordless. But, nevertheless, “The silent ones are blissful in the world,” because they humiliate, flatter and love according to calculation. They may well reach “the famous levels”, petting mosquitoes and looking ingratiatingly into Tatyana’s eyes

Yuryevnam.

Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky is very similar to Molchalin, Chatsky also notes this. But Zagoretsky is more frank than Molchalin. He is an obvious pleaser, a liar, a card sharper, and, on occasion, an informer; it is not for nothing that Gorich warns about this quality of his.

No, it’s not without reason that Griboyedov paints Zagoretsky, who came from the whirlpool of social life, like the other hero who appears at the end of the play, Repetilov. In his confused

In the story we see many Moscow and St. Petersburg types, “the smartest

people,” who in fact turn out to be empty talkers, just like Repetilov himself, who vulgarizes

The gallery of typical images of Famusov’s society is also represented by the old woman Khlestova, an old Moscow lady, a despotic serfwoman, categorical in her

estimates, and the family of Prince Tugoukhovsky, busy chasing rich suitors, and

the elderly, dull Countess Khryumina with her arrogant granddaughter, and Natalya Dmitrievna, a capricious coquette, crushing her own husband under her heel, and a whole series of people who are not directly involved in the comedy, but are mentioned in cursory and apt descriptions.

As we see, there are quite a lot of representatives of Famus society, an old, moribund society, in the play. And therefore the main character is broken by its quantity, but not by its quality. After all, laughter and mockery permeate the entire play, and a ridiculed vice is no longer scary. Laughter conquers an environment teeming with silent, rock-toothed, Zagoretsks, -

obsolete Famus society.

In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” Griboyedov depicted the life of Russia after the Patriotic War of 1812. Close in his views to the Decembrists, Griboedov showed the clash of two camps in Russian public life: the advanced Decembrist and the old serfdom, “the present century” and the “past century.” Depicting the “past century,” Griboyedov brought onto the stage a whole crowd of inhabitants of noble Moscow. These are rich and noble nobles - “aces”, as they proudly call themselves. They are famous not for their merits in the official field, not for excellent performance of civic duty, not for orders and wounds received on the battlefields, No! The main thing for them is wealth. “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand well-born souls, that’s the groom,” says Famusov in a conversation with Skalozub. And a certain Tatyana Yuryevna is respected here only because she “gives balls that couldn’t be richer.” With choking delight, Famusov tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, showed neither business qualities nor talents, but only “bravely sacrificed the back of his head” and became famous for the fact that he often “bent neck" in bows. And many visitors to Famusov’s house create honor and wealth for themselves in the same way as this old nobleman. The Moscow high nobility, depicted in Griboedov's comedy, lives monotonously and uninterestingly. Let's go to the Famusovs' house. Guests gather here every day. What are they doing? Dinner, playing cards, talking about money, clothes, gossip. Here everyone knows about others, envy their successes, and maliciously celebrate their failures. Chatsky has not yet appeared, and here they are already slandering his failures in the service. They don't read either books or newspapers. Enlightenment for them is a “plague”. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:

“Learning is the plague, learning is the reason, That now there are more crazy people, and deeds, and opinions.” Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “cockerels”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “Get you to work! You’re welcome!” Moscow nobles boast of their patriotism, their love for their native country. Famusov enthusiastically tells Skalozub about the “special imprint on all Moscow people.” But there is very little Russian, simple and natural in them. On the contrary, everything about them, from the semi-Russian language and outfits with “taffeta, marigold and haze” to the attitude towards their people, is deeply alien to the Russian. The girls sing French romances, read French books, distort Russian names in a foreign way. In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire: “It’s not that they introduce new things - God never save us! No". And when Chatsky dared to “publicly announce five or six healthy thoughts,” how frightened the old master Famusov was! He called Chatsky a “dangerous man”, and his thoughts “delusional ideas.” Members of the Famus society are united in one camp by ideals (“And take rewards and live happily”), inertia, fear of the new, fear of progressive people. Unfortunately, many of our compatriots are almost no different from Famusovites. But it seems to me that ignorance and militant stupidity will be defeated by new generations, when not only rank and money, but intelligence and bright heads will be valued.